>From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
>Miles Sabin wrote:
> > ...
>
>>Right, but this document uses five distinct namespaces,
<snip>
>Whether the TAG says it or not, choosing names that are non-equivalent by
>network infrastructure rules is merely common sense and I've never heard of
>a violation of that rule.
>
I'm not sure of the context of this argument... It seems to be more about
namespace URIs than URLs as used on the web in general. At any rate, I'd
caution against the assertion that character case doesn't matter in URLs.
It happens not to in IIS, because IIS directly maps URL heirarchies to its
file system, and that underlying file system is not case sensitive.
However, in Apache, and per the RFC (IIRC) URLs -are- case sensitive, and
therefore http://www.microsoft.com/foo should not be considered the same
resource as http://www.microsoft.com/fOo, regardless of what current
improper implementations of web servers exist.
Hopefully, you're arguing a different line, and I can stop worrying. ;)
>As far as "/" vs. "/default.asp", I'm 99% sure that IIS lets me take more
>fine grained control of that default equivalence if I need to do so. If
>I've been silly enough to deploy those two namespace URIs, I am probably
>not hosed...it will just take a little bit more effort to disambiguate
>them.
>
It does. Any given file (in the current directory) can be made the
"default" for a particular directory, so that "/" and "/foo" can be the
same.
As a side note, I'm pretty sure that a request to
"www.example.com/somedirectory" is not even treated as equivalent to
"www.example.com/somedirectory/" by IIS... I think the former request is
redirected to the latter.
> Paul Prescod
-Jeremy Dunck
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus